The NLRB Creates a New Standard for Evaluating Workplace Rules’ Effect on the Right to Unionize

Published on | Permalink

In The Boeing Company and Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, IFPTE Local 2001 the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) articulated a new standard for determining whether employers’ rules and handbook provisions violate the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) prohibition on rules that interfere with employees’ right to join labor organizations and bargain collectively. Cases 19-CA-09032, 19-CA-090948, and 19-CA-095926. The NLRB believes that this new standard will be easier to apply on a case-by-case basis, and will invalidate fewer “common-sense rules and requirements that most people would reasonably expect every employer to maintain.”


In The Boeing Company, Boeing had a policy that banned the use of “devices to capture images or video” without a valid business need and camera permit (No-Camera Rule). The No-Camera Rule prohibited only the use of the camera–not the entire device–therefore employees were allowed to use cellphones and laptops on company property. The question before the Board was whether the No-Camera Rule violated the NLRA’s prohibition against employers interfering with employees’ right to unionize.

Section 7 of the NLRA guarantees employees the right to self-organize and join labor organizations. Section 8(a)(1) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with that right. Under prior law, if a rule did not explicitly interfere with employees’ right to unionize, the NLRB would consider whether: (1) employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights. Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, Case 7-CA-44877 (emphasis added). The administrative judge held that Boeing’s No- Camera Rule was unlawful because it failed prong (1) of the test; that is, employees would “reasonably construe” the rule to prohibit Section 7 activity.

NLRB Decision

The NLRB overruled the “reasonably construe” standard iterated in Lutheran Heritage and held that, under its new test, the No-Camera Rule was lawful. The NLRB listed many reasons why the test was insufficient. Among those reasons, was that the “reasonably construe” test “entails a single-minded consideration” in that it does not consider justifications for having the employer’s rule in place. The NLRB noted that the test created confusion for employers because outcomes were unpredictable, and that the test was based on the false premises that employees are best served by not having employment policies.

Under the NLRB’s new test, the first question is whether the rule would potentially interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights. If not, then the rule is lawful. If yes, then the NLRB considers (1) the nature and extent of the potential impact on NLRA rights, and (2) legitimate justifications associated with the rule. Then the NLRB will classify the rules it evaluates under this new standard into one of the three categories. Category 1 includes rules that are lawful because they don’t interfere with NLRA rights or the potential adverse impact on rights is outweighed by the rule’s justification. Category 2 includes rules that warrant individualized scrutiny in each case as to whether the rule would prohibit or interfere with NLRA rights, and if so, whether any adverse impact is outweighed by justifications. Finally, Category 3 includes rules that the NLRB designates as unlawful because they violate NLRA-protected conduct and are not properly justified.

As for Boeing, the NLRB determined that the No-Camera Rule fell under Category 1 because it only had a slight adverse impact on Section 7 activity and Boeing had legitimate justifications for the rule. Boeing has highly sensitive and classified information because it manufactures military aircrafts for the federal government.


The NLRB’s ruling affects union and non-union workplaces because non-union workplaces must also comply with the provisions in the NLRA prohibiting interference or restraint on collective bargaining and self-organizing. Therefore the ruling has a widespread impact. The new test is more employer friendly in that it gives weight to the reasoning behind implementing a workplace rule or policy.  Additionally, the categorization scheme should provide employers with more guidance in creating lawful work policies.

The case is available at:

Seventh Circuit Holds Pharmaceutical Product Liability Claims Preempted By Federal Law

Published on | Permalink

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held on January 19, 2018, that federal law preempts thousands of product liability claims, brought under the laws of various states, concerning Depo-T (a testosterone drug). Guilbeau v. Pfizer Inc., No. 17-2056 (7th Cir.). The case illuminates the intersection of tort law, federal regulation, and intellectual property.

Generally, a new drug must undergo a rigorous “new drug application” (NDA) process before the Food and Drug Administration will approve them for public use. The NDA process includes a laborious review to determine a drug’s safety and efficacy. If approved, a drug that has gone through the NDA process is considered a brand name drug and any drug made thereafter of the same composition will be considered a generic drug. The distinction between brand name and generic drugs implicates intellectual property rights, pricing, and obligations with respect to labeling.

If a second drug is considered to be the same as or bioequivalent to a drug approved through the NDA process, that second drug may be reviewed by the FDA under the “abbreviated new drug application” (ANDA) process. A drug approved through the ANDA process is generally considered a generic drug. However, in certain circumstances, a drug approved through the ANDA process is deemed to be the reference-listed drug (that is, the first drug of that physical composition to be approved by the FDA), and is therefore considered a brand name drug.

This case fell into those unusual circumstances. In 1953, Delatestryl (a testosterone replacement drug) was approved as a new drug by the Food and Drug Administration after NDA review. Then, in 1979, Depo-T was found to be the same as Delatestryl and was approved through the ANDA process. However, because Depo-T was slightly different in physical composition to Delatestryl, the FDA deemed it a separate reference-listed drug. Depo-T therefore became the brand-name drug for any later generic versions using its particular formulation.

In 2014, more than a thousand plaintiffs filed suit in several states, alleging that, after taking Depo-T as prescribed, they suffered heart attacks or strokes. The plaintiffs sued Pfizer, Inc. (the drug’s manufacturer), under the theory that the company failed to warn physicians and patients of the drug’s potentially fatal side effects. After those cases were consolidated and the district court concluded that the plaintiffs’ state-law claims were preempted by federal law, the plaintiffs appealed.

The Seventh Circuit held that Depo-T’s classification as a brand name drug was less important than its regulatory approval under the ANDA process. The plaintiffs argued that, because Depo-T is a reference-listed drug, Pfizer had a duty to warn prescribers and patients of any dangers and should, therefore, have updated its labels explaining the risks of heart attack and stroke as those risks were discovered. The court disagreed. Because Depo-T was approved under an ANDA, it was to be treated legally as if it were a generic drug.

Generic drugs are obligated to use a label that matches the one used by the corresponding brand name drug and cannot make changes absent FDA approval. As a result, manufacturers of generic drugs cannot be sued on the theory that their labels fail to contain information not included on the label of the corresponding brand name drug.

The Seventh Circuit cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011), which held that when federal drug regulations that apply to generic drugs conflict with state law claims, like failure to warn of adverse side effects, the state law is preempted. In other words, because Depo-T’s was approved through the ANDA process and its label conforms with what the FDA required, the state-law failure to warn state law claims against Pfizer are preempted by federal law. The court noted that the unusual fact of Depo-T being a reference listed drug while also having the legal status of a generic does not change the outcome here.

Laura Lamansky is a law student at the University of Wisconsin and a law clerk working under supervision. She will be a full-time lawyer at Stafford Rosenbaum beginning later this year.


Published on | Permalink

In a recent decision, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals addressed the insurance implications of a car accident made unusual because at least two of the deceased workers were employees of temporary help agencies. See Ehr et al. v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. et al., Case No. 2017AP142 (Wis. Ct. App. January 9, 2018) [decision].  In so doing, the Court clarified that worker’s compensation laws—and particularly the exclusive-remedy provision that prevents injured employees from bringing tort suits against their employers—apply differently to temporary workers than to permanent employees.

The accident involved a vehicle owned by the temporary employer and occurred during work-related activities, which unfortunately resulted in the death of three individuals, at least two of which were temporary employees.  It’s the last of these circumstances that complicated matters.

One of the temporary employee’s estate and two surviving minor children filed a wrongful death action in Milwaukee County Circuit Court against Alpine Insulation, the temporary employer, and Alpine’s automobile liability insurer, West Bend Mutual Insurance Company. That suit sought damages for pain and suffering as well as the minor children’s loss of society, companionship, and support.  Id., ¶¶ 3-5.

After answering the complaint, Alpine and West Bend moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by Section 102.29(6)(b)1 of the Wisconsin Worker’s Compensation statute, which states:

“[n]o employee of a temporary help agency who makes a claim for compensation may make a claim or maintain an action in tort against . . . any employer that compensates the temporary help agency for the employee’s services.”

According to Alpine and West Bend, the plaintiffs’ wrongful death tort claim was barred under this statute because the deceased had been employed by a temporary help agency and Alpine had compensated that agency for the deceased’s services.  As a result, the defendants argued that under Section 102.29(6)(b)1 the plaintiffs could not bring tort claims against Alpine as the deceased’s temporary employer.  The circuit court agreed and therefore granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Ehr slip op. ¶ 6.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed.  The Court noted that, by holding that Wis. Stat. 102.29(6)(b)1 completely bars tort claims a temporary employee may otherwise bring against its temporary employer under all circumstances, the circuit court ignored the qualifying phrase “who makes a claim for compensation.”  The Court held that the plain meaning of the statute governs, such that a temporary employee injured during the scope of his or her temporary employment may seek relief in either of two ways: (1) by making a worker’s compensation claim against his or her permanent employer (the temporary help agency) and be subject to the exclusive remedy provision or, alternatively, (2) by pursuing a third-party claim against his or her temporary employer and foregoing any claim under the worker’s compensation statute.  Id. ¶¶ 14-18.

The Court further rejected Alpine and West Bend’s argument that such an interpretation would unfairly place temporary employees in a more advantageous position than permanent employees.  The Court explained that the exclusive-remedy provision only limits permanent employees’ claims against their employers, and that such employees are free to pursue tort claims against third parties.  The exclusive-remedy provision, the Court continued, places the same limitation on temporary employees vis a vis their permanent employers (the temporary help agency).  The legislature’s adoption of Wis. Stat. § 102.29(6)(b)1 was a reasonable recognition of a “middle ground” for claims by a temporary employee against his or her temporary employer; rather than treat such entities as a truly independent third party and allow a temporary employee to pursue those tort claims in addition to a worker’s compensation claim against the temporary help agency, the temporary employee may only choose one avenue of recovery.  Id. ¶¶ 21-25.

An interesting factual wrinkle that was not explored in this decision is that the driver of the Alpine-owned vehicle was also a temporary Alpine employee, but had been hired through a different temporary help agency than the employee whose estate brought this lawsuit.  One wonders if the plaintiffs could have avoided any potential worker’s compensation statutory complications altogether by filing a claim against only West Bend under the theory that, as the insurer of the Alpine vehicle, West Bend was obligated to provide coverage for any liability arising from the negligent operation of that vehicle.  Additionally, given that the temporary workers were employed by different temporary help agencies, the plaintiffs presumably could have brought suit directly against the driver and possibly his personal auto liability insurer without implicating any potential worker’s compensation statutory limitations.

In any event, in light of the Ehr decision, Wisconsin employers should factor in their increased liability exposure when deciding whether to seek help on a temporary basis.  While it may be cost-effective to avoid taking on additional permanent employees in other areas of their business, the Ehr decision makes clear that businesses employing temporary workers are exposing themselves to additional liability exposure should a temporary employee be injured on the job.  At a minimum, Wisconsin businesses should ensure that all of their liability insurance provides adequate coverage for any potential tort claims brought by a temporary employee.

Court Determines Defendant’s Breach of Contract Constituted a “Wrongful Act”

Published on | Permalink

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued a decision that clarifies an exception to the general rule that attorneys’ fees are not recoverable damages. Talmer Bank & Trust v. Jacobsen, No. 2017AP752-FT (Wis. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2018). The court held that a litigant may recover attorneys’ fees if he or she is forced into litigation with a third party because of another party’s breach of contract.


The Gomezes entered into a land contract with the Jacobsens. The underling land was owned by the Jacobsens, subject to a mortgage. Pursuant to the contract, the Gomezes made monthly payments to the Jacobsens, and in turn the Jacobsens were supposed to continue making mortgage payments. Unbeknownst to the Gomezes, the Jacobsens missed fifteen consecutive monthly mortgage payments. Eventually the mortgage holder initiated a foreclosure action against both the Gomezes and the Jacobsens. The Gomezes reached a settlement with the bank that allowed them to stay on the property. The Gomezes then filed a cross-claim arguing that the Jacobsens must pay their attorneys’ fees that they incurred in defending the foreclosure action.

Generally in the United States, litigants may not recover attorneys’ fees as damages, but there are exceptions to this rule. The Gomezes invoked the “third-party litigation exception,” which states that a party may recover attorneys’ fees if another party’s wrongful act forces the individual into litigation. It was uncontested that the Jacobsens’ breach of the land contract forced the Gomezes into litigation with the bank, therefore the sole question before the circuit court was whether the Jacobsens’ breach constituted a wrongful act. The circuit court held that a breach could not constitute a wrongful act, and therefore the Jacobsens were not required to pay the Gomezes’ attorneys’ fees.

Court of Appeals’ Decision

On appeal, the Jacobsens argued that their breach of contract did not constitute a wrongful act because a wrongful act is limited to fraud, breach of a fiduciary duty, or “something similar.” The court of appeals rejected this argument. “Our supreme court has unequivocally declared that ‘a breach of contract as well as tort may be a basis for allowing [a] plaintiff to recover reasonable third-party litigation expenses.” ¶ 10 (quoting City of Cedarburg Light & Water Comm’n  v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 42 Wis.2d 120, 166 N.W.2d 165 (1969)). The court explained that attorneys’ fees are recoverable when such fees are rightly considered part of the damages flowing from the defendant’s breach of contract.

The court’s decision makes clear that when a party’s breach of contract forces someone else into litigation with a third party, such breach is a wrongful action, which permits the individual to recover his or her attorneys’ fees from the breaching party.

Court Distinguishes Employers Ability to Recoup Draws on Commission

Published on | Permalink

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a decision holding that hhgregg Inc.’s practice of paying at least minimum wage to commissioned employees when earned commissions fell short of minimum wage during a given pay period, and then later deducting that amount if the employee made more than minimum wage in the future, did not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Stein v. HHGregg, Inc., 873 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2017). The Sixth Circuit’s jurisdiction extends to Tennessee, Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio. Wisconsin businesses are not directly affected by the outcome of this case, but the circuit’s decision is informative.


Hhgregg’s retail employees are paid on commission. If the employees do not sell enough products to meet minimum-wage requirements in a given week, then hhgregg advances a “draw” to the employees to bring their wages up to minimum wage. If an employee later makes more than minimum-wage in a work week, then hhgregg will deduct the amount of previous draws from the employee’s paycheck. Current and former employees sued hhgregg claiming that the recoupment of draw advances from later paychecks violated the FLSA. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that hhgregg’s policy violated the requirement that minimum wage be paid “finally and unconditionally or ‘free and clear.’” 29 C.F.R. § 531.35. That is, the employees claimed that this scheme resulted in an unlawful “kick back” of wages.

The Court’s Decision

The court concluded that recouping draws from later paychecks does not constitute an unlawful kick-back. The court explained that the regulations prohibit employers from demanding that employees return wages already delivered. However, the court held that hhgregg’s practice did not violate the anti-kick back FLSA regulations because hhgregg employees keep all draws received from the company in the paycheck in which the draw is received. If and when the employee makes more than minimum wage, hhgregg deducts draws from wages before they are delivered to the employee. Therefore, hhgregg was not receiving a kick-back from delivered wages, and thus did not violate the regulations.

Employer Take-Away

Stein v. Hhgregg provides helpful insight for Wisconsin employers who have commissioned employees. Wisconsin employers may wish to review their policies in light of this decision and consult with legal counsel.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Claims by John Menard’s Former Fiancée

Published on | Permalink

The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued its last decision of 2017 in Sands v. Menard, 2017 WI 110, which involved a Watts v. Watts-type unjust enrichment claim by Debra Sands, the former fiancée of president and CEO of Menard, Inc., John Menard, Jr.  In a 5-2 decision authored by Chief Justice Roggensack, the court upheld the court of appeals’ decision dismissing Sands’ claims.  Our discussion of the court of appeals decision is available here.

Sands, an attorney and businesswoman, claimed that from 1998 through 2006, she and Menard participated in a joint enterprise intended to further grow and develop Menard’s business for their joint benefit.  Asserting that she provided both business and personal contributions to Menard throughout the course of their relationship that resulted in financial gain to his business, Sands sought a portion of Menard’s “net worth or assets, ownership interests in the Menard companies, or any part of the increased value in the Menard Companies.” Id. at ¶ 16.

The court spent an extensive portion of the majority decision discussing Watts and its progeny, highlighting the fact that the Watts Court evaluated the standard factors for an unjust enrichment claim:  (1) whether a benefit was conferred on the defendant by the plaintiff; (2) whether the defendant knew and/or appreciated the benefit; and (3) whether it would be inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit under the circumstances.  While Watts involved cohabitating parties, the court noted that it is the joint enterprise, not the romantic relationship, that provides a basis for the unjust enrichment claim. 

The court then distinguished Watts from the facts before it, noting that Menard had already established his highly successful business before meeting Sands, both Sands and Menard were educated and involved in business, and both had sufficient financial resources.  Further, Sands did not allege that she and Menard comingled any funds, purchased any real estate or personal property jointly or that she had obligated herself on any of Menard’s business or personal debt.  Thus, the court concluded that Sands and Menard did not engage in a joint enterprise.  Despite making this determination, the court went on to evaluate the unjust enrichment factors, further concluding that Sands could not state a claim under this analysis.  Most notably, in evaluating whether it would be inequitable for Menard to accept or retain any benefits conferred by Sands, the court determined Sands could not demonstrate that any benefits she conferred upon Menard during the relationship were not offset by the benefits she received given that she lived a luxurious lifestyle during the relationship.

While not necessary for the disposition of this case, the court nonetheless addressed the additional issue of whether Supreme Court Rule 20:1.8(a) served as an absolute bar to Sands’ unjust enrichment claim.  Unlike the court of appeals, the majority determined that Supreme Court Rule 20:1.8(a), which governs Wisconsin lawyers’ involvement in business transactions with clients and financial conflicts of interest, did not create an absolute bar to Sands’ claims.  Citing the preamble to the Supreme Court Rules, the court explained that the rules assist the courts in determining whether lawyers have met the standards of care applicable in each case.  The court explained that Rule 20:1.8(a) was not determinative on the viability of Sands’ unjust enrichment claim because Sands was not engaged in “the practice of law in Wisconsin” during the time period at issue.

After fully evaluating the unjust enrichment claims, the court also upheld the court of appeals’ decision to dismiss Menard’s, Inc.’s counterclaim against Sands for breach of fiduciary duty.  The purported claim arose from the closing of a 2005 transaction in which Sands was involved; however, the claim was not asserted until after Sands sued Menard years later.  The court determined that Menard – a very experienced businessman – knew or should have known that he needed to investigate Sands’ role in the transaction sooner, and thus, the statute of limitations barred his claim.  Finally, the court upheld the dismissal of claims by Sands against Menard Trustees on the grounds that Watts does not support an unjust enrichment claim against a third party, because such a claim would lack the necessary joint enterprise.

Justice Abrahamson concurred in part and dissented in part, and was joined by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley.  The dissent opined that Sands did state an adequate claim for unjust enrichment such that the claim should proceed, taking particular issue with the majority’s comparison of the facts in Watts and its progeny to the facts in this case.

This case highlights the importance of clear agreements between business partners and cohabitating partners to avoid confusion and potential litigation.  Even the most experienced business people and attorneys can become involved in litigation when the parties’ relationship terms are unclear.

Appeals Court Limits Pro Rata Insurance Policy Distributions To Post-Trial Liability Determinations

Published on | Permalink

In Lovelien et al. v. Austin Mutual Insurance Company et al., No. 2016AP1679 (Wis. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2017), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals addressed an issue that often arises when multiple claimants allege damages against an insured and the total damages claims exceed the coverage limits of the relevant insurance policy: does Wisconsin law impose any restrictions or other obligations on how an insurer elects to distribute the available funds among the claimants through pre-verdict settlements?

In Lovelien, Austin Mutual had issued a $500,000 liability policy to an insured who was facing claims from multiple parties in excess of that amount arising from a multi-fatality automobile accident.  After failing to reach a global settlement, Austin Mutual settled with all but two of the claimants for $245,000.  Austin Mutual then deposited the remaining $255,000 with the court clerk and the court distributed those limited funds equitably between the remaining two claimants.  Lovelien, slip op. at ¶¶ 5-6.  The two remaining claimants appealed, arguing that Austin Mutual’s settlement and release with the other claimants violated Wisconsin’s “direct action” statute.  Id. ¶ 12. 

Wisconsin’s direct action statute states the following:

Any bond or policy of insurance covering liability to others for negligence makes the insurer liable, up to the amounts stated in the bond or policy, to the persons entitled to recover against the insured for the death of any person or for injury to persons or property, irrespective of whether the liability is presently established or is contingent and to become fixed or certain by final judgment against the insured. 

Wis. Stat. § 632.24.

According to the appellants, Austin Mutual’s partial settlement and release violated the clear intent of this statute by making payments to certain claimants without a determination of each claimant’s equitable pro rata share of the $500,000 policy limit based on the amount of damages each claimant suffered.  Lovelien, slip. op. at ¶ 12.

Writing for a unanimous Court of Appeals, Judge Seidl rejected the appellants’ argument.  Noting that courts are bound by unambiguous statutory language, Judge Seidl explained that the direct action statute merely creates an avenue for a claimant to recover directly from an insurer without having to first establish an insured’s liability.  While the statute does limit an insurer’s exposure to the relevant policy limit, it otherwise is silent as to how an insurer must distribute those funds among the claimants.  To accept the appellants’ argument, the Court held, would be tantamount to impermissibly inserting additional requirements into the statute.  Id. ¶¶ 14-19.

The Court further held that the appellants’ position was unsupported by the Wisconsin case law they cited, as those cases all addressed factually distinguishable post-verdict pro rata distributions where the respective liability of the insured to each claimant had already been established.  Placing the same pro rata burden on an insurer prior to trial would curtail both the insurers’ and claimants’ rights to settle, reasoned the Court, as it arguably would require every multi-claimant dispute to proceed to trial.  Moreover, to the extent that allowing an insurer to enter into potentially inequitable (non pro rata) partial settlements prior to trial creates valid public policy concerns, the Court concluded that it is up to the legislature to determine what public policy best serves the people of Wisconsin.  Id. ¶¶ 20-22.

Having been recommended by the Court for publication as binding Wisconsin precedent, the Lovelien decision raises a number of questions and concerns for those injured by Wisconsin insureds.  Under circumstances where an insured’s policy limits are well below the total amount of damages incurred by multiple injured parties, is an insurer free to simply pick and choose which party or parties get rewarded with the available funds?  May an insurer pay the full policy amount to one claimant and leave the other victims wholly uncompensated?  May an insurer use the threat of paying the available policy limits to other claimants as a sword during settlement negotiations to create leverage? Under the rationale applied by the Court here, the answer to all of these questions now appears to be “yes” in Wisconsin.

In the wake of Lovelien, therefore, parties involved in multi-victim accidents in Wisconsin should attempt to identify as early as possible whether any potentially responsible party may be underinsured and, if discovered, alter their settlement negotiation strategy accordingly.  Under such circumstances, failing to engage in prompt settlement discussions with Wisconsin insurer(s) could result in the policy limits being distributed to other claimants, leaving a party to have to pursue an insured directly to seek redress.

Stafford files U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief on scope of 5th Amendment Self-Incrimination Clause

Published on | Permalink

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that “no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend. V. In February, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt (No. 16-1495), a case about the scope of that guarantee.

The Vogt case asks “whether the prosecution’s use of a defendant’s prior compelled statement used in a preliminary hearing as evidence to his guilt violates the Fifth Amendment?” Stafford Rosenbaum filed a brief on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) urging the Court to answer the question with a “yes.”

Factual and Procedural Background

Vogt was a police officer for the City of Hays. In 2013, he applied for a police job with the City of Haysville. (Despite similar names, the cities are almost 200 miles apart.) During the hiring process, Vogt disclosed that he had kept a knife that he obtained while working as a Hays police officer. Haysville offered him a job, conditioned upon his returning the knife to the Hays police department.

When Vogt returned the knife, the Hays police chief opened an internal affairs investigation to determine whether the circumstances constituted a violation of department policy. As required by his job with the Hays police department, Vogt cooperated with the inquiry, including by giving a statement about his possession of the knife. Vogt then gave his two-week notice. The officer leading the internal investigation required Vogt to provide a more detailed statement. The police chief forwarded Vogt’s second statement to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI), which opened a criminal investigation. That investigation led to two felony criminal charges against Vogt. As a result of those charges, Haysville withdrew its job offer to Vogt.

Because the charges against Vogt were felonies, Kansas law entitled him to a preliminary hearing. The purpose of such a hearing is for a judicial officer to determine whether the prosecution has enough evidence to show probable cause and move forward to trial. At the preliminary hearing, the prosecution used the statements Vogt provided during the Hays police department’s internal investigation. The district court dismissed the charges because it concluded that, even with Vogt’s statements, the prosecution lacked probable cause to proceed.

Vogt then filed a federal civil rights suit, alleging that the use of statements he made during his employer’s internal investigation to initiate a criminal case against him violated the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against self-incrimination. The district court rejected this theory. But, on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the Fifth Amendment applies to preliminary hearings so that Vogt’s suit should have been allowed to proceed. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to resolve a disagreement among various federal courts of appeals about the scope of the self-incrimination guarantee.

The arguments made by NACDL and the ACLU

As amici, NACDL and the ACLU presented three arguments to the Court.

First, the constitutional text and Supreme Court precedent support the application of the Self-Incrimination Clause to preliminary hearings. The term “criminal case” means “an action, cause, suit, or controversy at law” or “a question contested before a court of justice.” Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 766 (2003) (plurality) (citing Blyew v. United States, 13 Wall. 581, 595 (1872)). While Chavez did not pinpoint when a “criminal case commences” for Fifth Amendment purposes, it clearly did not limit the guarantee against use of compelled statements to trial, stating that “‘[a] criminal case’ at the very least requires the initiation of criminal proceedings.” Id. at 766. It follows that an adversarial, evidentiary proceeding held after a criminal complaint has been filed by a prosecutor, designed for a judicial officer to determine whether there is sufficient evidence proceed to trial, is part of the criminal case at which compelled self-incriminating statements may not be used.

The Self-Incrimination Clause also applies by its own terms because a preliminary hearing is a stepping stone to conviction. When a preliminary hearing is held, the judicial officer’s finding of probable cause is a necessary precondition for the prosecution to proceed to criminal conviction. That means that the preliminary hearing—assuming the prosecution prevails at that hearing—moves the defendant one step closer to conviction; and if the prosecution does not prevail the criminal case is over. Using a defendant’s compelled statement against him in such a hearing is, therefore, part and parcel of the defendant’s path to conviction.

Second, a determination that the Self-Incrimination Clause does not apply to preliminary hearings would severely prejudice defendants. Preliminary hearings require only probable cause—a much lower bar than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard used at criminal trials. Allowing a prosecutor to clear that bar with a defendant’s self-incriminating statement undermines the Constitution and the purposes of a preliminary hearing. Allowing cases to proceed by using a defendant’s self-incriminating statement is inefficient and unjust. Postponing consideration of challenges under the Fifth Amendment harms defendants and distorts the criminal justice system. Requiring a defendant to wait after the preliminary hearing to adjudicate the admissibility of their own statement is too late. Some defendants will plead guilty long before reaching such an adjudication. This is true because very few criminal cases—fewer than a handful of every 100 prosecutions—proceed to trial. As a result, a preliminary hearing may be the only “day in court” that a defendant has.

Third, none of the concerns cited by the U.S. Department of Justice in support of its position that the Tenth Circuit decision should be reversed can withstand scrutiny. Moreover, the government’s position carries a chilling implication. By the Government’s logic, nothing would prevent a prosecutor from compelling a defendant to take the witness stand and forcing him to testify at a preliminary hearing, as long as the testimony was not used at trial. Such a scenario is inimical to the absolute protections the Court has long understood the Self-Incrimination Clause to confer. A ruling that countenances such a practice would be a substantial and deleterious change in constitutional doctrine.


This case presents a significant self-incrimination question. The Court’s decision could significantly affect Fifth Amendment jurisprudence. Oral argument will be held February 20. Stafford Rosenbaum’s Appellate Practice Blog will report on further developments as the case progresses


Published on | Permalink

On December 12, 2017, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals addressed a civil dispute arising from the high-profile criminal embezzlement scheme committed by Koss Corporation Vice President of Finance, Sujata (“Sue”) Sachdeva.  At issue were allegations Koss made against its bank seeking recovery on the theory that the bank committed bad faith in not detecting the embezzlement scheme. See Koss Corp. v. Park Bank, No. 2016AP636 (Wis. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2017).

Koss’s complaint alleged that Park Bank of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, violated Wisconsin’s Uniform Fiduciaries Act (“UFA”) by allowing Ms. Sachdeva to embezzle about $34 million from Koss accounts for personal use. Ms. Sachdeva used a variety of ways to embezzle the $34 million, including requesting cashier’s checks and cashing checks made out to “petty cash,” as well executing wire transfers to pay personal credit card bills.  Koss alleged the bank’s failure to discern Ms. Sachdeva’s embezzlement scheme amounted to a violation of Wis. Stat. § 112.01(9), which exposes a bank to liability if it permits transactions “with knowledge of such facts that [the Bank’s] action in paying the check amounts to bad faith.”

The bank moved for summary judgment, asserting that no material facts established it had intentionally or deliberately allowed the transactions to occur in bad faith.  At the circuit court, the court held that Koss had failed to cite any evidence that the bank “intentionally ignored Sachdeva’s embezzlement,” without which there was no way to show the bank acted in bad faith.  The court further noted that the circumstances established only the bank may have been negligent in failing to uncover the fraudulent conduct, but that one of the purposes in adopting the UFA was to eliminate negligence claims against banks arising from transactions where employees or other persons acting as an agent of a depositor commit an act causing a loss to the depositor. 

On appeal, Koss took the position that, although the bank lacked actual knowledge of Ms. Sachdeva’s embezzlement scheme, the circumstances raised enough red flags that a factfinder could conclude that the bank’s failure to detect the fraudulent transactions amounted to bad faith under the UFA.  In support of its position, Koss cited to (1) the large volume of improper checks—adding up to millions of dollars—Sachdeva requested, (2) the bank allowing unauthorized Koss representatives to request, endorse, and pick up checks, (3) the bank’s acceptance of checks payable to companies with cryptic initials (e.g., “N.M., Inc.” for Neiman Marcus and “S.F.A., Inc.” for Saks Fifth Avenue), (4) after-the-fact deposition testimony from a bank employee that the large number of cashier’s checks requested were “strange,” (5) Ms. Sachdeva’s testimony that she chose the bank at issue because of the ease in which she could conduct her fraudulent transactions, and (6) the bank’s failure to implement and/or enforce proper fraud-detection policies and procedures.

Despite this evidence, the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court by dismissing Koss’ claim of bad-faith.  Consistent with cases from other jurisdictions interpreting the UFA, our Court of Appeals concluded that to effectively bring a claim of bad faith under the UFA a depositor needs “proof of two elements: (1) circumstances that are suspicious enough to place a bank on notice of improper conduct by the [employee embezzling the depositor’s money on deposit]; and (2) a deliberate failure [by the bank] to investigate the suspicious circumstances because of a belief or fear that such inquiry would disclose a defect in the transaction at issue.”  Id., ¶ 27.

While the Appeals Court acknowledged that Koss cited ample evidence to establish the bank’s negligent failure to investigate and discover Ms. Sachdeva’s embezzlement scheme, it concluded that Koss failed to adduce facts sufficient to allow a factfinder to determine that the elements of proof for bad faith under the UFA were satisfied:

Although the transactions Sachdeva engaged in may appear suspicious or odd in hindsight, Koss has not cited any evidence to indicate that, in the larger context of Koss’s banking practices and the banking practices of Park Bank’s other corporate clients, the transactions were suspicious enough to put Park Bank on notice of Sachdeva’s misconduct.  Koss also fails to cite any evidence indicating that Park Bank deliberately declined to investigate Sachdeva’s transactions due to a fear that further inquiry would disclose defects in them.

Id., ¶ 51.  The Appeals Court then concluded that allowing Koss’ claim to proceed would be contrary to the UFA’s purpose of insulating banks from the misconduct of a depositor’s employees.  Id., ¶ 52.

This decision highlights how important it is for businesses to adopt and enforce internal monitoring protocols for financial activities by their employees and agents.  By adopting the UFA, Wisconsin has allocated the risk of loss stemming from fraudulent financial transactions to businesses rather than banks in all but the most egregious circumstances.  Businesses failing to take notice of suspicious financial activities (1) not only expose themselves to the risk of severe financial losses, but also (2) if the business has publicly traded securities then they may expose themselves to possible violations of federal securities law for failing to properly ensure the accuracy of their financial reporting.  See id., ¶ 12 n.4 (noting an adverse judgment entered against Koss pursuant to SEC lawsuit).

Please feel free to contact Greg Jacobs or Rich Latta if you would like to discuss any of the matters discussed above.

While a law firm with which Mr. Latta was previously affiliated may have provided legal representation of a party mentioned in Koss Corporation v. Park Bank, Mr. Latta did not represent any party involved and the thoughts expressed herein are strictly his own.

Circuit Court Ordered to Enforce Option-to-Purchase Provision in Commercial Real Estate Lease

Published on | Permalink

District II of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently remanded a commercial lease dispute back to the Waukesha County Circuit Court, directing the court to enforce the parties’ agreed-upon option-to-purchase provision as written.  See Headstart Building, LLC v. National Centers for Learning Excellence, Inc., No. 2016AP434 (Wis. Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2017).

The dispute originated from a 2002 commercial lease in which Headstart Building, Inc. (“Headstart”) agreed to lease real estate property in Waukesha to National Centers for Learning Excellence, Inc. (“NCLE”).  Id. ¶ 5.  The lease included a provision allowing NCLE to invoke an option to purchase the property at any time.  The following language in the option-to-purchase provision is the focus of the parties’ dispute:

In the event Tenant shall elect to exercise Tenant’s option to purchase the Premises, Landlord and Tenant shall each choose an appraiser to appraise the Premises which appraisals must be completed within forty-five (45) days of the date Tenant notifies Landlord that it intends to exercise its option to purchase.  In the event the fair market value of the Premises in the two appraisals differs by no more than five percent (5%), the Appraised Value shall be the average of the two appraisals.  In the event the appraised value of the Premises in the two appraisals differs by more than five percent (5%), the two appraisers shall agree upon a third appraiser and the result of such third appraisal shall be the Appraised Value.

Id. ¶ 6.

In December 2012, NCLE invoked its right to purchase the property, and the two parties commissioned their respective appraisals.  Headstart’s appraiser valued the property at $6.88 million dollars while NCLE’s appraiser issued a $4.075 million valuation.  Upon comparing the two appraisals, it became clear that the cause of such a wide discrepancy was the differing methodologies employed by the appraisers.  Headstart’s appraiser determined the fair market value with consideration of the current NCLE lease encumbrance, while NCLE’s appraiser calculated the fair market value of the property free and clear of the current lease.  Id. ¶¶ 7-8.

Rather than following the terms of the option-to-purchase provision and have their respective appraisers seek a third party to resolve the conflict, the parties instead engaged in written correspondence disputing the proper methodology to calculate the fair market value of the property.  Once those communications broke down, Headstart filed suit in Waukesha County Circuit Court requesting specific performance of the option-to-purchase (at $6.88 million) and damages arising from NCLE’s bad faith breach of the lease.  NCLE filed a declaratory judgment counterclaim, requesting the court to declare the proper appraisal methodology.  Id. ¶ 9.

After a two-day bench trial, Judge Haughney issued an oral ruling rejecting Headstart’s breach of contract and bad faith claims, though it was unclear from the record whether the grounds for the dismissal was based on Headstart’s failure to follow the option’s procedure of seeking a third appraisal or because the court concluded that the parties’ differing appraisal methodology positions represented a failure to reach a meeting of the minds, rendering the entire provision unenforceable.  Judge Haughney requested supplemental briefing regarding the fate of NCLE’s declaratory judgment counterclaim, and ultimately dismissed that claim as moot on the ground that the option provision was unenforceable and must be stricken from the lease in its entirety.  Id. ¶¶ 10-11.

After NCLE filed an appeal seeking to revive its declaratory judgment counterclaim, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals overruled the Circuit Court’s order striking the option from the lease.  Writing for the Court, Judge Hagerdorn noted that, while essential contractual terms (such as the purchase price in a real estate transaction) must be definite in order to be enforceable, it is well-settled under Wisconsin law that the terms need not be 100% certain so long as they are “capable of being ascertained from the agreement itself.”  Id. ¶ 17.  The Court referenced a long line of Wisconsin precedent upholding real property contracts setting a “fair market value” price to be determined by appraisement, and concluded that the parties’ dispute was one of differing interpretations of agreed-upon contractual terms.  Id. ¶¶ 17-22.   In conclusion, the Court found that the provision provided a simple, straightforward and definite means of determining the purchase price: either the average of the parties’ respective appraisals or, if the difference between those values was too great, the third appraised value of the property.  Id. ¶ 22.

Despite this conclusion, however, the Court found that substantive questions regarding the meaning of the option-to-purchase provision were not before it on appeal and remanded the case to the Circuit Court to address NCLE’s declaratory judgment counterclaim regarding whether the parties must appraise the property with consideration of the NCLE lease encumbrance.  Id. ¶¶ 24-25.  In a concurring opinion, Presiding Judge Reilly disagreed with these remand instructions, concluding that the proper methodology for determining the fair market value of commercial real estate is not a question of law for the courts to decide and that the provision here provides a dispute resolution procedure (i.e., a third appraisal) that should be enforced.  Id. ¶¶ 26-29.

While exercising restraint in only addressing the narrow question presented to it on appeal (whether NCLE’s declaratory judgment claim was properly dismissed), the Court of Appeals’ analysis leaves little doubt in the enforceability of the entirety of the parties’ option-to-purchase provision, including their agreed-upon means of resolving any valuation disputes through the use of a third appraiser.  It will be interesting to see if the Circuit Court follows the Court of Appeals’ lead on remand or instead elects to resolve the substance of the parties’ “fair market value” appraisal methodology dispute, which is one of first impression in Wisconsin.  See id. ¶ 24 n.7

Next Page